nortex97 said:

---

Jimmy Carter's two most enormous, glaring 'mistakes' in office (aka acts of absolute treason/idiocy) were giving away the Panama Canal and putting the mullah's in charge of Iran (make no mistake, this would not have happened without his approval). I will not mourn when that hateful old bigot finally passes.

Back to the canal itself, the Panamanians have done a terrible job maintaining it I have read, which is part of the reason for all the delays. Mexico is closing in on its 'inter-oceanic corridor' which is a rail line intended to handle millions of containers a year. Hopefully that works/competes well.

---

It seems nearly impossible for the cost of transportation to be competitive. Containers loaded on massive ships over water is far cheaper than containers on rail cars and that doesn't count the fact that this Mexican system will require a ship on one side to offload said containers then for another ship to load them on the other side. The brilliance of the Panama Canal from an economic perspective is its ability to utilize the cheapest form of transport we have.

We need to negotiate with Panama to resume control of the canal then repair it. Everything else is a bandaid.

First, Team America needs man inside... this guy.

Logical points, I have no idea, but time has a value in itself, and the delays transiting the Panama Canal also are contributing to costs for the shippers. It's also a problem getting ships unloaded in places like Long Beach. IMHO we need to fix our ports before we worry about fixing the canal, but no one's asking really about that now.

Eliminatus said:

---

Empty rhetoric is empty. HOW would a reclaim even realistically take place? Carter et al. were colossally incompetent in literally giving away one of the most strategic positions on the entire globe and we expect Panama to reciprocate and give it back? Because there is zero leverage without full on economic warfare or actual violence.

It sounds nice but until any sort of halfway feasible plan emerges of it even reaching the realm of possibility, this is simply clickbait to me.

Also, never miss a chance to damn Carter and his admin. They screwed us so bad we are still walking funny all these years later. I don't care how bad relations were with Panama and his want to pivot to a "new" way of foreign policy after the disaster of Vietnam. What a dismal failure he and that Congress was.

---

How dare you introduce common sense into this discussion...

I think the old saying is "you catch more flies with honey", and Trump ought to consider that instead of crapping on Panama's dinner plate.

Besides, since many US ports have rules/laws about Foreign Flagged vessels docking at US ports, how can canal authorities distinguish between a Norwegian flagged ship heading for Houston and one bound for Liberia? Pretty sure they aren't checking Bills of Lading for destinations...

I believe that some higher-ups of the Canal Authority are also Aggies, so ask them what's going on...

annie88 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Trump has a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. He should avoid talking and not getting things done. Let him first solve the issues he spoke about on the campaign. Then work on other stuff.

---

He's actually a very good multitasker.

---

"He's actually a very good multitalker."

FIFY

I'm all for it because those fees are bull****, but how would we reclaim it?

The community around the canal zone is a shell of it's past. So much underused or vacant property since the US left. Every 2 weeks the locals could count on an influx of USD and the area was vibrant.

As someone else said, he's doing this because China now controls it. Yet again we've ignored the western hemisphere (our backyard) to our own detriment.

We need to pivot much of our foreign aid going to Europe and refocus it south of us, if we are going to have foreign aid.

A treaty that was ratified by the Senate over 45 years ago and final execution was performed 25 years ago? Just how, exactly, does Trump think we "take it back"?Why is this even coming out of his mouth? Why now?

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

ts5641 said:

---

I'm all for it because those fees are bull****, but how would we reclaim it?

---

Good question.

Quote:

---

The Constitution provides, in the second paragraph of Article II, Section 2, that "the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Thus, treaty making is a power shared between the President and the Senate. In general, the weight of practice has been to confine the Senate's authority to that of disapproval or approval, with approval including the power to attach conditions or reservations to the treaty.

---

Quote:

---

The question of whether the President may terminate treaties without Senate consent is more contested. In 1978, President Carter gave notice to Taiwan of the termination of our mutual defense treaty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the President did have authority to terminate the treaty, but the Supreme Court in Goldwater v. Carter(1979), vacated the judgment without reaching the merits. The treaty termination in Goldwater accorded with the terms of the treaty itself. A presidential decision to terminate a treaty in violation of its terms would raise additional questions under the Supremacy Clause, which makes treaties, along with statutes and the Constitution itself, the "supreme Law of the Land."

---

LINK

Sees to me the quickest way is to ask Panama to agree to an amendment of the treaty since it would essentially be reclaiming physical territory that was previously ceded. I think Panama would be amenable since it has become such a headache for them to maintain it. Some type of revenue sharing in exchange could do the trick, methinks.

Maybe Kofi Annan should sanction us with his Navy.

Good Trump. At a minimum, the sabre rattling will likely get it cheaper.

Carter was both a moron and a liar. He campaigned on not giving up control of it, then flipped after being elected

WolfCall said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Trump has a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. He should avoid talking and not getting things done. Let him first solve the issues he spoke about on the campaign. Then work on other stuff.

---

Trump is putting every country (and group of countries) on notice who he feels are treating America unfairly. This goes for the big guys (China, EU, NATO, UN) and the little guys like Panama.

Trump's putting them on notice is a forerunner to future negotiations - gives them an opportunity to reconsider the way they have been doing business with America....

It has worked in the past.

---

Don't F with an eagle if you can't fly

The Kraken said:

---

A treaty that was ratified by the Senate over 45 years ago and final execution was performed 25 years ago? Just how, exactly, does Trump think we "take it back"?Why is this even coming out of his mouth? Why now?

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

---

Probably because the canal is a strategically important asset and between China's influence and its lack of maintenance its future availability is in doubt. Nothing lasts forever, only until someone is willing to upset the status quo and it appears Trump is at least willing to consider doing so.

Russia can demand Alaska back if they'd like. They won't get anywhere with that demand but nothing is stopping them from doing it. On the other hand I'm guessing if he's able to make the case that the strategic value of the canal is significant enough for us to act that we will eventually regain control.

Just like nearly everything Trump says at the outset of a discussion, this is a negotiating tactic - and I'm here for it.

The Kraken said:

---

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

---

Russia can't even kick the ass of a suburb of a country, ran by a comedian.

Shoefly! said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

He's not wrong. It was nuts to give it to Panama. At a minimum U.S. military vessels should have the right of free and priority passage in perpetuity, and American owned cargo vessels passage at a greatly reduced rate. We should have also demanded a permanent military base in close proximity to the canal.

---

$500k per ship is not a fee, it's plundering!

---

Edit:

A few points:

• The tolls are cheaper than sailing around S America - if they weren't ships would sail around. Simple economics
• Droughts have made operating the canal more difficult
• Since ships apparently can't or won't make reservations - the wait time to use the canal is long and they have instituted an auction system
• I'm sure running that system is expensive
• The US has completely f'ed up its strategy with China - under no circumstances should the US have put herself in a position to allow the Chinese to have any influence here.

The Kraken said:

---

A treaty that was ratified by the Senate over 45 years ago and final execution was performed 25 years ago? Just how, exactly, does Trump think we "take it back"? Why is this even coming out of his mouth? Why now?

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

---

Because we've let our arch enemy gain control of a massively important strategic logistical choke point in our own backyard.

Answer seems obvious to me.

They also recently opened a second set of locks that allows bigger ships through so it is more important than ever. Panamax ships are no longer the limit.

The last president to invade Panama was a Bush, and Trump despises that family so, unlikely.

The treaty has conditions in order for Panama to maintain control over it. Hth

Logos Stick said:

---

The treaty has conditions in order for Panama to maintain control over it. Hth

---

Could you please elaborate on said conditions? TIA

True but most of the US LNG is going to be Gulf Coast to Europe… no need to go thru the Panama Canal.

Meh. If it's a good idea . Just because Trump doesn't like the Bush's doesn't mean they didn't have any good ideas.

Btw, I'm not suggesting I think invading Panama is a good idea but negotiating better deals for American shipping interests might be

dmart90 said:

---

Shoefly! said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

He's not wrong. It was nuts to give it to Panama. At a minimum U.S. military vessels should have the right of free and priority passage in perpetuity, and American owned cargo vessels passage at a greatly reduced rate. We should have also demanded a permanent military base in close proximity to the canal.

---

$500k per ship is not a fee, it's plundering!

---

Edit:

A few points:

• The tolls are cheaper than sailing around S America - if they weren't ships would sail around. Simple economics
• Droughts have made operating the canal more difficult
• Since ships apparently can't or won't make reservations - the wait time to use the canal is long and they have instituted an auction system
• I'm sure running that system is expensive
• The US has completely f'ed up its strategy with China - under no circumstances should the US have put herself in a position to allow the Chinese to have any influence here.

---

Can't agree more. A second blue star for you.

Of note the 5th bullet is the crux of the entire problem...why did we let the CCP have a container handling facility on both SW, and NE Corner of the canal? Not to mention a huge role in the development and construction of the Cruise ship docks...

Gar-own-teed it did not happen before 1999, when ownership transferred...so that leaves L'il Bush or Chicago Jesus...

Wonder which one had personal disdain for all things Western Civilization?

LOYAL AG said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

A treaty that was ratified by the Senate over 45 years ago and final execution was performed 25 years ago? Just how, exactly, does Trump think we "take it back"?Why is this even coming out of his mouth? Why now?

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

---

Probably because the canal is a strategically important asset and between China's influence and its lack of maintenance its future availability is in doubt. Nothing lasts forever, only until someone is willing to upset the status quo and it appears Trump is at least willing to consider doing so.

Russia can demand Alaska back if they'd like. They won't get anywhere with that demand but nothing is stopping them from doing it. On the other hand I'm guessing if he's able to make the case that the strategic value of the canal is significant enough for us to act that we will eventually regain control.

---

Good points, but how does a president take something back that no longer is theirs to take back?

It sounds like a great idea, but this isn't something he can just "So much winning" sign an EO and get it.

We need to leave Europe to its on devices and put100% of our attention into the western hemisphere.

I have been screaming these for years and one reason I support DJT.

Great big ocean between western hemisphere and the rest of the world. Great wealth and Natural resources and much work to do here.

PA24 said:

---

We need to leave Europe to its on devices and put100% of our attention into the western hemisphere.

I have been screaming these for years and one reason I support DJT.

Great big ocean between western hemisphere and the rest of the world. Great wealth and Natural resources and much work to do here.

---

Are we best friends? Have also been saying this for years. Probably one of the first on here, actually.

The Kraken said:

---

A treaty that was ratified by the Senate over 45 years ago and final execution was performed 25 years ago? Just how, exactly, does Trump think we "take it back"?Why is this even coming out of his mouth? Why now?

Maybe Russia should demand Alaska back due to it being a "bad deal".

---

Did Russia retain a permanent right to defend Alaska from threats to its neutral service to ships of all nations?

PA24 said:

---

We need to leave Europe to its on devices and put100% of our attention into the western hemisphere.

I have been screaming these for years and one reason I support DJT.

Great big ocean between western hemisphere and the rest of the world. Great wealth and Natural resources and much work to do here.

---

Would you be including Israel, like Europe, as part of that which isn't part of the a western hemisphere?

No Spin Ag said:

---

PA24 said:

---

We need to leave Europe to its on devices and put100% of our attention into the western hemisphere.

I have been screaming these for years and one reason I support DJT.

Great big ocean between western hemisphere and the rest of the world. Great wealth and Natural resources and much work to do here.

---

Would you be including Israel, like Europe, as part of that which isn't part of the a western hemisphere?

---

Israel is protected by Jehovah as it is written, a covenant between the Jews and God.

Europe and Asia can work it out amongst themselves.

A unified Western Hemisphere would be a force no one would mess with.

On a sidenote, I got to interview the then Aggie President of Panama Martn Torrijos '87 in 2007ish

I was the editor of the Texas Aggie magazine at that time and it was for an article. I remember him being very nice.

PA24 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

PA24 said:

---

We need to leave Europe to its on devices and put100% of our attention into the western hemisphere.

I have been screaming these for years and one reason I support DJT.

Great big ocean between western hemisphere and the rest of the world. Great wealth and Natural resources and much work to do here.

---

Would you be including Israel, like Europe, as part of that which isn't part of the a western hemisphere?

---

Israel is protected by Jehovah as it is written, a covenant between the Jews and God.

Europe and Asia can work it out amongst themselves.

A unified Western Hemisphere would be a force no one would mess with.

---

I'm not seeing, or understanding, really, the answer to my question. Sorry.

Are you good with us doing to Israel the same as what was suggested about Europe?